Silva v. Worth et al

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/2/2016. Show Cause Response due (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY SILVA, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 WORTH, et al., 13 1:16-cv-01131-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER (Doc. 6) Defendants. 30-DAY DEADLINE 14 15 Plaintiff, Anthony Silva, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in 17 forma pauperis which was not on the correct form. (Doc. 2.) On September 2, 2016, an order 18 issued providing Plaintiff with the correct form and directing him to complete and submit the 19 correct form within forty-five (45) days. (Doc. 6.) More than forty-five days have lapsed without 20 Plaintiff having filed the correct form. 21 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 22 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 23 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 24 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 25 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 26 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 27 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 28 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 1 1 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 2 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 3 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 4 prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of 5 6 service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the 7 Court’s order and for his failure to prosecute this action. Alternatively within that same time, 8 Plaintiff may either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the correct form, or pay 9 the $400.00 filing fee for this action. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2016 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sheila K. Oberto 2 .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?